Is it true that Chavez nationalized the oil, irritating the oil industry? Stories have come out about the middle east oil countries, like the Shah of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. If the USA set up leaders in these countries to benefit oil companies, I can't blame the people of these countries for being upset! Maybe the USA wasn't benefitting directly, but cronies were getting rich.

I want to know more about the leader of Equador, he's saved Julian Assange so far.

Chavez nationalised Venezuela's oil, yep ! And why not ?!! As no human being created it, then it is surely a 'common treasury for all, right ?!!! However, such pure and simple truths are somehow considered 'radical', lol and also see :

During Assange's interview with President Correa for his series 'The World Tomorrow', the two men clearly struck up a bond. Was it during this interview that Assange first got the idea of claiming asylum from a sympathetic Ecuador ?

From which, I quote : "The struggle for democracy brought an understanding by the people that change only comes if they create it. The pre- Chávez era is seen as a pseudo Democracy, managed for the benefit of the oligarchs. The people viewed Chávez as a door that was opened for them to create transformational change. He was able to pass laws that aided them in their work for real democracy and better conditions. And Chávez knew that if the people did not stand with him, the oligarchs could remove him from power as they did for two days in 2002."

To further quote George Galloway, MP : "Under Chávez’ revolution the oil wealth was distributed in ever rising wages and above all in ambitious social engineering. He built the fifth largest student body in the world, creating scores of new universities. More than 90% of Venezuelans ate three meals a day for the first time in the country’s history. Quality social housing for the masses became the norm with the pledge that by the end of the presidential term, now cut short, all Venezuelans would live in a dignified house."

So, yes bw - Chavez was indeed "a warrior for the poor" and we must hope that his inspiration goes on to seed the next generation of Bolivarians - wherever they may be, to realise that only together are we stronger and - as this excellent article ends by saying :

"If the United States and the oligarchs think the death of Chávez means the end of the Bolivarian Revolution he led, they are in for a disappointment. This revolution, which is not limited to Venezuela, is likely to show to itself and the world that it is deep and strong. The people-powered transformation with which Chávez was in solidarity will continue."

Even Mother Theresa is being maligned these days for helping the poor. There is a real backlash against the poor around the world. It's a way of self-preservation for those who have enough and who don't want to share the resources. It takes empathy and compassion to understand the plight of others and to even take on their cause when you really have no need to for yourself.

Yep, the vilification and shaming of the poor is merely a way to place the blame for the inequity in this country on the very people who suffer from it and divert it away from those who are to blame, the greedy, blood sucking, entitled wealthy and corporations.

And, if only we could get the people to realize that they are NOT to blame for their economic situation, we might just be able to get them out in the street. That is what it's going to take to make change.

"Where is America’s Hugo Chavez? Who Will Stand Up Against the Military-Oil-Banker Mafia?" by Rob Urie : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34225.htm also much food for later thought and re. "shame on people who malign others who do good in this world so that they can justify their own bad behaviour. Shame on them.", amen, ditto and solidarity @ All Venezuelans at this difficult time.

"What is in fact taking place is economic pillage with the full cooperation and facilitation of Mr. Obama and his administration. From banker bailouts to stolen homes, incarceration for profit, student loan penury, wars for oil, profit extracting sick-care and social insurance cuts, class war was launched and is being fought from above. And the non-conflictual economic theories of classical and neo-liberals have rendered cooperation the mechanism of self-subjugation. Against far greater odds Hugo Chavez fought back the forces of global capital, plutocracy and their servants in the oil mafia (CIA) to improve the lot of Venezuela’s poor. What he showed is the straightest path to achieving social justice is to fight for it."

Great article and a great title; "Where is America's Hugo Chavez? The excerpt you provided inspired me to read it. Another excerpt from the article; "Of what benefit is GDP (Gross Domestic Product) ‘growth’ if what it accomplishes is to grow the political power of a ruling elite determined to use it to reduce the political power and economic circumstance of everyone else?"

"How many times did you read and listen in the past few days to pontificating pundits tell you that Hugo Chavez had “wrecked” the Venezuelan economy, without a whiff of self-consciousness about the state of our own (in the UK) and that of the United States? That Chavez’s Venezuela was a “divided” society; as if Bush, Obama, Cameron, and Osborne led governments of national unity?", from :

I append the above here as a highly relevant aside almost on this the 10th anniversary of The Illegal Imperial War On Iraq & re.Hugo Chavez, I end by finally appending here on this thread, the following :

Just as we run out of thread space, of course... Thus, I offer the following link, it may interest you. But please consider it a rough draft, a work in progress. I'm interested in your perspective and thoughts regarding the OP...

"Sitting on the fence like that will only give you a sore arse and possibly piles too ! This is OWS - we do what ever we do, for The 99% - wherever we are - so are you with us 'Mr. Journo' ?!! 'Trashy' apparently thinks I'm "desperate" lolol & indeed I am - for The 99% !!! "

So where does one sit when the facts lie equally on both sides of the fence? As for the 99%, I support them when they're in the right and condemn them when they're in the wrong.

You could do with meditating on the nature of "we" as you clearly are still far too preoccupied with the 'me, myself and I' !!! IF you think that "the facts lie (sic) equally (!o!) on both sides of the fence" - then you've clearly overdosed on 'objectivity' !! And you are possibly a bit lost brother !
More importantly :

Yeah, it's my favorite drug. It's the absence of the "me, myself and I" and especially the "we".

Objectivity - is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. A proposition is generally considered to be objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject). In a simpler meaning of the term, objectivity refers to the ability to judge fairly, without bias or external influence.

"Subjectivity is the only truth" (Jean Paul Sartre) ! It seems that you are able to sit on some strange self absorbed fulcrum between The 0.01% Parasite Class ; the enabling and co-opted 1% and ... The Global 99% !!! Whatever your "drug" is - you've clearly overdosed on it !! Just say no to sin-thetix - keep it to organix !!! Here ... try some of mine, ======## ''' '' ' & also consider :

Good comment - and - in compliment = People and cancer charity/groups lobby to have identified carcinogens removed from our foods and our water and our air and our land. Fossil Fuel, Artificial dye's and sweetener's, steroids and hormones fed to live stock etc etc etc. It is not enough to pour money into finding cures for cancer - IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT CAUSES BE REMOVED.

Shadz66 used Jean-Paul Sartre's comment out of context. It refers to semiotics and literature, it's not a generalized quote that applies to all spheres of human endeavor. Jean-Paul Sartre is definitely not the Solipsist shadz66 would have us believe.

Good call. I was confused with the idea that truth cannot be known because everything is subjective, an old concept started by the solipsists in ancient Greece. Jean-Paul Sartre used this idea, but only in terms of analyzing literary text. He's sort of the grandfather of deconstructionism which Derrida and others pushed further in later years.

This quote from Kierkegaard means something entirely different. He doesn't mean that no truth can be acquired, but rather that there is only on truth and that it is subjectivity. However, we must contextualize the quote to understand it properly.

The quote appears in Concluding Unscientific Postscript, an essay which is part of Philosophical Fragments. The essay is a reply to the scientific community, most precisely René Descartes, who felt that truth could only be achieved through a rigorous scientific method. Kierkegaard was a theologian Christian and his idea was that truth could only be found in Christianity. In prior texts he often talked about the importance of the Leap of Faith, that is, to be a true Christian one must believe from faith and not require proof. Faith is always subjective because it isn't backed up with hard evidence. Kierkegaard believed truth could only be found with salvation, and, because faith is subjective, he states that "Subjectivity is the only truth" - as opposed to the idea that the scientific method is the only truth.

In any case, shadz66 quote didn't apply to the conversation. He was obviously referring to the idea of the solipsists I described above.

That may be true for some, but I believe most actually believe they are being objective. But their objectivity stems from their experiences so is biased by those experiences.

Although, I will say that I have heard of reporters getting fired for writing negative stories about companies who advertise with the station. So I could see this as having a chilling effect on reporters.

Quite true. Occupy members who might disagree with a single mainstream view on this forum can get hammered. I know from experience. It doesn't phase me though, just makes me stronger and more determined.

The only way to be completely objective is to see every pertinent fact from every point of view, from every point in time. Truth is literally four dimensional. It doesn't lie on the left or the right, up or down, close or far, or even at that point in time. It's position in space and time can't be moved by the observer, although many try.

Obviously human beings are incapable of perfect objectivity, but it shouldn't prevent our seeking to come as close as possible

Nature has no fear.. a forest fire is completly objective.. a hurricane.. a tidal wave.. all these have no fear.. no emotion ..

There is a small percentage of the population that have no fear .. in fact they thrive on danger.. it excites them .. The top one percent may fit this category .. they are the biggest risk takers .. but they lack empathy.. as does a machine.

to be honest is neither subjective nor objective, but to honestly report the news is very subjective. The act of picking sources, the act of emphasizing one set of factors over another and the act of not reporting on other factors all are subjective but are not dishonest.

It's known around the world that America is the most evil country, it doesn't mean other countries and leaders aren't bad. Every country is angelic compared to US. Being better than US means close to nothing. We have to aim much higher than that.

Like I said, the wrongs committed by US are the most evil in the world. Everyone knows that. I'm happy I never have to set foot on American soil. I did a few times and it was the worst cultural experience in my life. A complete disaster on all levels.

I'm wondering why you defend the wrongs of Chavez. Surely, if his wrongs weren't that bad you wouldn't have to compare them to the most evil wrongs in the world to make them look good.

Shouldn't Occupy attack all wrongs? Else, how can we hope to make a better world?

I also see Americans on TV, and have met many outside of US. And, yes, I also trust my first impressions. The number of interesting Americans per capita is extremely small compared to other cultures. As a rule of thumb, we can say that nearly all Americans are a complete waste of time. It's the TV they watch, the guns they carry, and the junk food they ingest. To think properly, a brain needs to be fed properly. You can't expect much from people who eat at McDonald's every day, and think a Hollywood hit equates cinematic art. A show like Jerry Springer could only be made in America and reach top ratings in America. That says it all.

For many years I have met and worked with people from different countries and cultures and find that there is a mix of good and bad (but mostly good). The important take-away from that experience is that making assumptions about large numbers of people based on tiny sample sizes in not only erroneous but also lazy.

Trollin', trollin', trollin',
Killfiles all are swollen,
Keep them filters growin', killfile.
Wherever trolls should blather,
Ignore ‘em altogether,
Try it, you’ll have some peace and quiet.
The things that you’ll be missin',
The moanin’ and the pissin',
Are gone if you just kiss ‘em goodbye.

It's a broad brush, but it paints the truth. Live outside of US for a few years then come back. You'll be flabbergasted at the lowliness of Americans. There's a good reason Americans have a bad reputation just about anywhere outside US.

He fed them the scraps so he could stay in power while he and his cronies made tens of $ billions. This is not news. The evidence is widely available from human rights organizations. How can you defend him?

Have we ended poverty here? Do we talk about ending poverty here? Do we take any action to end poverty here? Do we care about the poor here? There is no champion of the poor here, there was in Venezuela.

Why don't beautifulworld and 1sealyon present evidence for their opinions regarding Chavez instead of back and forth unsupported argument. Assuming they don't live in Venezuela, let's see first hand information from the people who do.

Sitting on the fence like that will only give you a sore arse and possibly piles too ! This is OWS - we do what ever we do, for The 99% - wherever we are - so are you with us 'Mr.Journo' ?!! 'Trashy' apparently thinks I'm "desperate" lolol & indeed I am - for The 99% !!! Thus :

Why don't beautifulworld and 1sealyon present evidence for their opinions regarding Chavez instead of back and forth unsupported argument. Assuming they don't live in Venezuela, let's see first hand information from the people who do.

Apparently 'Tr@shy', you try to call yourself a leftist and a 'socialist' but of course, that is yet another of your miasma of myriad manipulative mendacities and in truth (something of which you seem to know so little and 'feel' even less) - if you actually had even the remotest clue about Chavez, you'd know which side the bread is buttered on this matter but of course you are here as a egomaniacal, specious, fork-tongued agent provocateur - intentionally out to obfuscate, defame and get a rise.

So, we'll try some 'call and response' shall we because I've got some links to lay down and hence I'll be your huckleberry and see where we go. Thus for openers read (if you dare) :

"Chavez had a real grasp of the dynamics of imperialism, and recognised that the Iraq war, and the opposition to it, held back the US from intervening against his government." & "Visiting the Venezuela of what he called the Bolivarian Revolution was to experience something exceptional in today’s neoliberal world, a country in which ordinary people genuinely admired, respected and often revered their leader. "

Well at least you're not calling yourself 'OccupyWaIIStreet' (using double Capital 'i's !) and posting about 'Bridge To Ground' as that would only get someone's boot to 'bridge' over to your ass, right ?!

Fascist dictators run countries with economic systems that fail the masses. You just don't like the fact that Chavez fought for the poor, even the poor here in America which makes the U.S. government look bad, so you need to malign him.

Nah, he probably just believes the MSM propaganda against Chavez, like most Americans. I just read an article a couple weeks ago with some eye-opening truths about Chavez, like sticking it to Big Oil in contract negotiations and something about, I think Dole Inc., that allowed thousands of poor people the ability to own land. I can't remember where or I'd link it.

"Here is what Jimmy Carter said about Venezuela's "dictatorship" a few weeks ago: "As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world."

"This is the former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva, last month: "A victory for Chávez is not just a victory for the people of Venezuela but also a victory for all the people of Latin America … this victory will strike another blow against imperialism."

"...the living standards of the majority of Venezuelans have dramatically improved under Chávez. Since 2004, when the government gained control over the oil industry and the economy had recovered from the devastating, extra-legal attempts to overthrow it (including the 2002 US-backed military coup and oil strike of 2002-2003), poverty has been cut in half and extreme poverty by 70%."

If people only understood that what the American corporate establishment has done to people in Latin America is what they would also like to do to us, and also understood just how bad what the establishment has done in Latin America is, then everything would change in America tomorrow.

I spent years protesting U.S. Latin American policy in the 80's, and I hope people now are more receptive to the ugly truth regarding our policies there.

The loss of Hugo Chavez is a loss for freedom loving people everywhere. Our condolences must go out to the Venezuelan people.

Most Americans live a comfortable, secure life. Most aren’t interested in politics or social issues. I’d guess most people couldn’t name their governor or senator. As long as they can have their Starbucks and big screen TV they are content.

I think a large part of this apathy is most people today have never lived through hard times. Even the wars haven’t touched most people. It’s just a five minute update on the nightly news. People think, and expect, they will have it all. As much as we complain about it, most people really are living the American dream.

I don’t expect people to “wake up”. I don’t expect people to get involved; or even care. Nothing will happen until things get so bad it touches them personally. Only when their secure and comfortable lives are threatened will people start caring.

I’m one who believes the economy will crash, and we’ll probably have another depression. Then, and only then, will people start caring.

The thing to do is to make taking action as simple as possible such as sending a tweet. People can certainly "Tweet for Freedom" (see below) in spreading the message of a viable plan and college students are the most conscious and active people for supporting any movement.

The problem with getting people involved is everyone is trying to get people’s attention. Every advertiser, every charity, every political issue and so on. The masses are inundated with people trying to get their attention. Everywhere you turn someone wants your money or attention.

The result is people tune out almost everything. It’s impossible to internalize all the things wanting you to notice them. So, you just ignore it. Or more accurately for your sanity you ignore it.

It’s gonna be hard to get a single mother working her ass off to support her child to care about social issues. It’s going to be hard to get an ailing senior citizen who can barely feed themselves to care about social issues. And the list goes on.

One factor for OWS is its agenda is complex and not easily understood by the person on the street. If you can’t explain what you’re about in thirty seconds you probably won’t make a difference. If you want people to care they have to understand what it is you want.